Sending on behalf of EPDP Team leadership Action Items/Instructions * Review section 3 of the Initial Report: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Mgh02pxjpDUpdhnOFNg72YhNshk19lef/view (pdf format - please request staff support team if you like to receive a word version to facilitate review) * If necessary, review the reference documents (in pdf format) to see how previous comments / edits have been applied or responded to: * LvN Consensus policy write up: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1TW3Z-s6DzS2QsV_VwJ6iUQTvKVIXQrmG * LvN Guidance write up: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1TW3Z-s6DzS2QsV_VwJ6iUQTvKVIXQrmG * Feasibility write up: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1TW3Z-s6DzS2QsV_VwJ6iUQTvKVIXQrmG * Flag any “cannot live with” items and/or minor edits using this document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/16CrfK1i-Ja-JdN7rTHM_pcWgjlr9tI_Ctp010iKz... * 🚨🚨🚨🚨 Deadline for flagging<https://docs.google.com/document/d/16CrfK1i-Ja-JdN7rTHM_pcWgjlr9tI_Ctp010iKz...> “cannot live with” items is Wednesday 26 May at 12.00 UTC 🚨🚨🚨🚨 * 🚨🚨🚨🚨 Deadline for flagging<https://docs.google.com/document/d/16CrfK1i-Ja-JdN7rTHM_pcWgjlr9tI_Ctp010iKz...> minor / non-substantive edits is Friday 28 May at 16.00 UTC. 🚨🚨🚨🚨 * Note: in response to the recent email from Alan G., Support Staff sent the Initial Report template<https://docs.google.com/document/d/10fnhz7FvAGU069sGop_sQ2L-iZ6GVpurMAVWXsC9...> to the Team on Wednesday, 19 May<https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/2021-May/003911.html>. Dear EPDP Team, As you know, we are rapidly approaching the Initial Report publication deadline. Leadership has worked with the Staff Support Team on producing the final draft versions of the write ups, which have now been combined in clean form as section 3 of the draft Initial Report (see https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1TW3Z-s6DzS2QsV_VwJ6iUQTvKVIXQrmG) to allow for a holistic review and allow your groups to identify any “cannot live” with items. In addition, we would like to highlight the following: 1. In those cases where it did not seem we’ve been able to arrive at a common position, we have tried to reflect the positions that have been expressed and are encouraging contributors to the public comment forum to provide specific input on the issue at hand that will hopefully allow the EPDP Team in the next phase of its work to come to a common understanding. This approach has been applied, for example: on the question of whether the adding of a standardized data element should be a requirement (vs a suggestion) and whether those that decide to differentiate must make use of such a standardized data element; whether such a standardized data element should be redacted in the public RDDS, and; whether different terminology (best practices instead of guidance) should be used to refer to the current guidance . 2. Please make sure to review the staff redline version reference documents where you can see how changes were applied as well as responses to some of the comments that were not applied (for example, some comments restated concerns that were considered and addressed by the EPDP Team during its last meeting). 3. A recommendation was included after the deadline by the GAC Team in relation to feasibility of unique contacts. This may mean that not everyone will have had a chance to review this proposal and as such, it has been included in brackets and highlighted in yellow in the version that the group will review. Please use the “cannot live” with table to indicate if you have concerns about including this recommendation. 4. Concerns have been expressed by the GAC Team in relation to the inclusion of references to GDPR principles in the guidance write up, which was included at the request of the Registrar Team to provide further guidance to Contracted Parties. Alternative language has been suggested by the GAC Team to address this concern. We would like to ask the Registrar Team to review this language and to indicate if this works for them (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/103kazmQlFxRmecNosslsZhg6u0MwxoZ5DiZj86j0...). If not, the GAC and the Registrar Team should connect with each other to see if/how these concerns can be addressed and report back to the EPDP Team by email by Tuesday 25 May at the latest. 5. Even though the guidance write up was not open for review, several comments/proposed edits were submitted. Those that seemed non-controversial/clarifying edits have been applied, but some others that seemed to be of a substantive nature have not been applied. If these rise to the level of “cannot live with” items, groups should flag these as such. There was also a specific suggestion by the GAC Team for an addition to the guidance. This suggestion has been included in brackets and highlighted in yellow in the version that the group will review. Please use the “cannot live with” table to indicate if you have concerns about including this addition. We appreciate that not all of your group’s concerns may have been addressed, but we would like to remind everyone to keep our deliverable in mind which is publishing an Initial Report for public comment. This is not yet the final stage. Of course, if there are further specific questions you think should be called out as part of the public comment period to allow for new insights to be provided that may help the EPDP Team to come to agreement on some of the outstanding issues, please feel free to suggest these. As we are approaching our publication date, we would also like to encourage you to think about how the EPDP Team can ensure that public comment is focused on new ideas and information that has not been considered previously – we would like to avoid, to the extent possible, the EPDP Team having to spend time on views that have already been expressed and considered in the context of our deliberations. As you are aware, the EPDP Team has in previous phases used a google doc form to guide commenters in their contributions as the number of recommendations in the phase 1 and phase 2 report were substantial. In this case, as the recommendations are limited, this may not be the preferred approach, but at the same time we would like to avoid getting thesis-like submissions which may be difficult for the group to analyze and apply to the preliminary recommendations. We look forward to hearing your ideas and suggestions on how to address the public comment submissions. In order to allow each group time to review section 3 of the Initial Report, there will NOT be a meeting on Tuesday 25 May. Please use your time wisely. The deadline for flagging “cannot live with” items is Wednesday, 26 May at 12.00 UTC to allow the leadership team sufficient time to prepare the agenda and items to be discussed during our meeting on Thursday, 27 May. Best regards, Berry, Marika, and Caitlin